Skip to the text
Ember
PT

The Conference

WITH minister of Cfyarenton, coNCEMriyra the

Preparation for the conference and particular instruction .

Mademoiselle De Duras, being in some doubt about her religion, caused me to be asked by several persons of rank whether I were willing to confer with M. Claude in her presence ? I answered that I would most willingly do so if I saw that such a conference was necessary for her salvation. She afterwards, through the medium of the Duke of Richelieu, invited me to come to Paris on Tuesday, the last day of February, 1678, and to enter into conference the next day with this minister on the point that she would specify to me. It was for the purpose of specifying it that she wished to see me before the conference. Having called on her on the day appointed, she acquainted me that the point she desired to have discussed with her minister was that of Church Authority, which seemed to her to include the whole controversy. She appeared to mb not likely to come to a resolution without this conference, so that I judged it absolutely necessary.

I told her she had indeed good reason to lay the principal, and indeed the whole stress on this article, which, in fact, involved the decision of all the rest, as she herself had observed ; and I took occasion to impress her yet more deeply with the importance of the question. It is, I observed, ah ordinary boast of your ministers that they cannot be denied to admit the fundamentals of belief. They say that we believe all they believe, but that they believe not all we believe. Their meaning in this is, that they have kept all the fundamentals of faith, and rejected only what we have added to them. They draw thence a great advantage, and pretend that their doctrine is secure and indisputable. Mademoiselle De Duras remembered very well having often heard them speak to this effect. 1 will make, proceeded I, but one remark upon this, which is, — that, far from conceding that they believe all the fundamentals of faith, we show that there is one article of the creed they do not believe, which is that of the universal Church. It is true they orally profess, “ I believe the Catholic (or universal) Church, ” as Arians, Macedonians, and Socinians say with the mouth, “ I believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.” But as we are warranted in charging them with not believing these articles, because they believe them not as they ought, nor according to their true sense, so if we show the “ Reformed” that they believe not as they ought the article of the Catholic Church, we may truly say that they, in fact, reject an important article of the creed.

Mademoiselle De Duras had read my treatise of the Exposition of Catholic Faith. She told me she remembered having^ seen something in it like to what I now said ; but I answered that in that treatise my intention had been to treat matters very briefly, and that it was fit that they should be stated to her somewhat more amply.

It must be borne in mind then, said I to her, what is meant by this expression, “ Catholic or universal Church:” and in explanation, 1 began to lay for my ground that in the creed, which had for its object a simple declaration of the faith, this term must be taken in its most proper and most natural signification, and such as is most usual among Christians. Now all Christians by the name of Church understand a society professing to believe the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and govern itself by bis word. . If this society makes this profession, it is consequently visible.

On the fact of this being the proper and natural signification of the word €t Church,” of its being the import known by every one and used in common discourse, I desired no other witnesses than the Reformed themselves. When they speak of their Church prayers, of Church discipline, of the faith of the Church, of the pastors and doctors of the Church, they mean not the prayers of the predestinate, nor their discipline, nor their faith, but the prayers, faith, and discipline of all the faithful assem- bled in the external society of God’s people. When they say that a man edifies the Church, or that he scandalizes the Church, that they receive one into the Church, or exclude one out of the Church, all this is undoubtedly understood of th6 external society of God’s people. Thus they explain it in the form of baptism when they say they are going to receive the child M into the fellowship of the Christian Church,” and when, accordingly, they oblige the godfathers and godmothers u to instruct the little one in the doctrine received by God’s people as it is,” say they, “summarily comprised in the confession of faith which we all have ;” and, again, when, in their Church prayers, they supplicate God w to deliver all his Churches from the jaws of ravening wolves.” And yet more expressly in the confession of faith, article xxv., when they say “ that the order of the Church which was established by Jesus Christ must be sacred, and therefore that the Church cannot subsist if there be not therein pastors having the charge to teach.” And, in article xxvi., “ that none ought to draw aside, but that all together ought to keep and maintain the unity of the Church, submitting to the common instruction.” And, in fine, in article xxvii., “ that we must carefully discern which is the true Church ; and that it is the company of the faithful which agree to follow the word of God, and the pure religion thereon depending.” Whence they conclude, article xxviii., “ that where God’s word is not received, nor any profession made of subjection thereunto, and where there is no use of the sacraments, one cannot, properly speaking, judge there is a Church.” It is evident by all these passages, and by the common practice of the u Reformed,” that the proper, natural, and generally used signification of the word Church is this — the external society of God’s people, amongst whom though there be found some hypocrites and reprobates, “ their malice,” say they, “ cannot efface the title of the Church,*’ article xxviii That is, hypocrites mixed in the external society of God’s people cannot take from it the title of the true Church, provided it be vested with these exterior marks, “ the profession of God’s word, and the use of the sacraments,” as is said in article xxviii. This is the acceptation of the word Church, when we speak simply, naturally, and properly, without wrangle or cavil; and if this be the ordinary acceptation of the word, we have reason to say that it was in this sense the apostles made use of it in their creed, where the most ordinary and simple style was to be adopted, the object being to embrace in few words the confession of the fundamentals of belief.

In fact, it has become usual in the common discourse of all

Christians to denote this external society of God's people by this word Church. When they mean to speak of the society of the predestinate, they express themselves accordingly, and say the Church of the predestinate : when by this word is meant the “ Assembly and Church of the first-born which are written in heaven," it is expressly named, as we see in St. Paul.1 He here takes the word Church in a more unusual signification, for “ the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, where is a company of many thousands of angels, and spirits of just men made perfect," that is, for heaven, where the holy souls are gathered together ; and therefore he adds a word to mark out this Church : — it is “ the Church of the first-born," who have preceded their brethren into glory. But when we use thejword Church without any addition, the common practice of all Christians, not excepting the “ Reformed" themselves, takes it to signify the assembly, the society, the communion of those that confess the true doctrine of Jesus Christ. And whence proceeds this custom of all Christians but from the Holy Scriptures ? — where, in fact, we see the word Church taken commonly in this sense ; so that this cannot be denied to be the ordinary and natural signification of the word. The word ecclesia (which we render Church) originally signifies an assembly, and was principally assigned to the assemblies heretofore held by the people for the discussing of public affairs. And the word is used in this sense in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts, when the people of Ephesus gathered in fury . against St. Paul — u The assembly (ecclesia) was confused." And again : “ If ye inquire after any other matter, it may be decided in a lawful assembly" (ecclesia). And in fine : “ When be had said these things, be dismissed the assembly" (ecclesiam).f This was the use of the word ecclesia (Church) amongst the Greeks and the heathens. The Jews and Christians afterwards made use qf it to signify the assembly, the society, the community of God’s people which professes to serve him. Every one is aware of that famous version of the Seventy, who translated the Old Testament into Greek some ages before the coming of Jesus Christ : out of above fifty passages where this word is found to be made use of in their translation, there is not any one in which it is otherwise taken than for some visible assembly, and very few in which it is not taken for the external society of God’s people. In this sense also St. Stephen makes use of it when he says that “ Moses was in the Church in the wilderness with the Angel which spake to him call- ing by this name, Church, according to the usage received amongst the Jews, the visible society of God’s people. Christians took this word from the Jews, and kept it in the same sense, using it to signify the assembly of those that confessed Jesus Christ and made profession of his doctrine.

This is what is simply called the Church, or the Church of God and Jesus Christ; and out of more than a hundred passages where this word is made use of in the New Testament, there are scarce two or three where this signification is contested by the ministers ; and even in the places where they do contest jt, it is manifest they do so without reason. For example, they will not allow this text of St. Paul, where he says that Jesus Christ presented to himself a “ glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that should be holy k and without blemish this text, I say, they will not allow to be understood of the visible Church, nor even of the Church on earth, because the Church, so considered, far from being without blemish, stands in daily need of this prayer — u forgive us our sins.” Now I say, on the contrary, that to affirm that this glorious and spotless Church is not the visible Church is manifestly to contradict the apostle. For see of what Church St. Paul speaks, it is of that a which Jesus Christ loved, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.”f This Church, washed in water and purified by baptism; this Church, sanctified by the word of life — whether that of preaching, or that which is made use of in the sacraments ; — this Church is without doubt the visible Church. The holy society of the predestinate is not excluded from it: God forbid. They are the most noble part of it ; but they are comprised in this aggregate. They are there instructed by the word, they are there purified by baptism; and often also some of the reprobate are employed in these ministrations. In this Scripture passage, therefore, the predestinate are to be regarded, not as making a body apart, but as constituting the fairest and most noble portion of this external society : it is this society which the apostle calls the Church. Jesus Christ without doubt loves it, for he has given it baptism ; he shed his blood to gather it together ; there is no one either called, or justified, or baptized, in this Church, who is not called, justified, and baptized in the name and by the merits of Jesus Christ This Church is glorious, because she publicly glorifies God, because she declares to all tlie earth the glory of the gospel and cross of Jesus Christ. This2

Church is holy, because she ever steadily and invariably teaches the holy doctrine which continually brings forth saints in her unity. This Church has neither spot nor wrinkle, because she has neither error nor any evil maxim ; and moreover because she instructs and holds in her bosom the elect of God ; who, though sinners on earth, find in her communion external means to purify themselves, so that tliey shall one day come in a most perfect state before Jesus Christ. *

This perhaps is the only passage in which rt may with some show of probability be alleged that the word Church, taken simply, signifies any thing else than the external society of God’s people : and yet you see how clear k is that it ought to be understood as the rest.

But should this passage, and two or three more, have a signification either doubtful, or even different from this, yet all the remainder are conformable to it. For what is there more frequent than such expressions as these, — that we are to edify the Church, that the Church has been persecuted, that God is praised in the midst of the Church, that she is saluted, that she is visited, that there are pastors and bishops established to govern her, and other like,3 the number of which is infinite ? It cannot then be denied that this is the ordinary signification of the word Church, and consequently that in which it was to be taken in so plain a confession of faith as is the apostles’ creed. In this sense was it taken by a whole great council, the first and holiest of all the universal councils, when condemning Arius it pronounced in this manner, u The holy Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes all those who say that the Son of God was drawn out of nothing. ”f It is Jesus Christ himself who taught us to believe the Church in this sense. For to found his Church he came forth from the invisible bosom of his Father, and made himself visible to men : he assembled about him a society of men that acknowledged him for their master. This is what he called his Church. To this primitive Church the faithful who afterwards believed aggregated themselves, and thence sprang the Church which the creed terms Catholic or universal. Jesus Christ used the' word Church to signify this visible society, when he said himself we must hear the Church — “ Tell the Church,” and again when he said, u Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”J

Why, said I, madam, why will not they of your religion understand here by the word Church, the society of those who profess to believe in Jesus Christ and the gospel, since it is certain that this society is in effect the true Church, against which hell could never prevail, neither when it instigated tyrants to persecute her nor when it hired false teachers to corrupt her ? Hell will not prevail against the predestinate, it is certain ; for if it cannot prevail against this external society, with much greater reason it will not prevail against the elect of God, who are the purest and most spiritual part of this Church. But by the same reason that it cannot prevail against the elect, it cannot prevail against the Church which teaches them, in which they confess the gospel and receive the sacraments. It is this external society, in which the elect serve God, that we ought to understand by the word Church, and at the same time admire the invincible force of Jesus Christ’s promises, who has so invigorated the society of his people, though weak in comparison with the infidels that encompassed it without, though torn by heretics who divided it within, that there has been not so much as a single moment in which this ChuFch has not been seen by the whole earth.

But the u Reformed” have not dared to retain this natural sense of the gospel ; for, that they might establish themselves, they have been forced to say in their Confession of Faith, article xxxi«, “ That the state of the Church was interrupted, and that it was needful to raise it up anew, because it was in ruin and desolation.” In fact, when their Church was set up, it entered not into communion with any other Church then existing on earth ; but was formed by breaking with all the Christian Churches which were in the world. They have not then the consolation which Catholics have, of seeing Jesus Christ’s promise visibly accomplished and maintained during so many ages. They cannot show a Church which has ever been since Jesus Christ came to build it on the rock ; and, to save his word, they are obliged to have recourse to a Church of the predestinate, which neither themselves nor any one can show. Now Jesus Christ intended to exhibit something striking and clear when he said that his Church, despite the opposition of hell, should be always invincible ; he would, I say, exhibit something clear and resplendent, which might serve, in all ages, for a sensible and palpable assurance of the immutable certainty of his promises. And, in fact, let us consider when he spoke this word: “ Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”4 It ftras when, after asking his apostles, “ Whom say ye that I am ?’ ? Peter in the name of them all answered him, “ Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.” Upon this illustrious confession of faith, which flesh and blood had not dictated, but the heavenly Father had revealed to Peter ; upon this illustrious confession of faith, I say, are founded both St. Peter’s dignity and the Church’s immovable firmness. This Church, which confesses Jesus Christ to be the true Son of God, is that against which hell shall never prevail, and which shall subsist without inter* ruption, despite all the effortsrand artifices of the devil. It appears, then, clearly that the Church of which Jesus Christ speaks in this place is a confessing Church, a Church that pub* lishes the faith, and consequently an external and visible Church. And mark what he adds : “ And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” Whatever is to be understood by these words, whether preaching or ecclesiastical censures, or the ministry of priests in the sacrament of penance as Catholics understand them, it is certain, at any rate, that here is an exterior ministry given to this Church. It is then this Church which confesses the faith, and confesses it principally by the mouth of St. Peter ; it is this Church which uses the ministry of the keys; it is she that shall always be. on earth, hell never being able to prevail against her.

And because Jesus Christ intended that she should always visibly subsist, he invested her with discernible marks which are always to continue ; for see how he sends his apostles, and what he says to them at his ascending into heaven : u Go, ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even unto the consummation of the world ;”f teaching with you, baptizing with you, instruct* ing with you, my faithful, to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded ; consequently, exercising with you in my Church an external ministry. It is with you, it is with those that shall succeed you, it is with the society assembled under their guidance that I shall be, from this present, even to the consummation of the world ; always, without interruption, for there shall not be any one moment in which I will abandon you ; and though absent in body, I will be always present by my Holy Spirit.

In consequence of this word, St. Paul also tells us that the ecclesiastical ministry shall last, without discontinuance, till the general resurrection : “ He that descended is the same that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things ; and he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ that is to say, until we have attained the perfection of Jesus Christ, glorified in body and soul ; this is the term which God has set to the ecclesiastical ministry.

The Reformed will not allow the visible Church to be that which is called Jesus Christ’s body ; what is then that body “ where God has established some apostles, some prophets^ and some pastors and teachers ?” Which is that body where God has placed several members and different graces, “ the grace Of ministering, the grace of teaching, the grace of exhortation and consolation, the grace of ruling ?”f Which, I say, is that body, if it be not the visible Church? But that which makes the Reformed unwilling to acknowledge that the body of Jesus Christ, so much recommended in the Scripture, can be the visible Church, is their being constrained to say that the visible church sometimes ceases to be on earth, and they recoil from asserting that Jesus Christ’s body is not always, for fear of implying that Jesus Christ dieth again.

It Is then, unquestionably, this assembly of pastors and peo-

E le, it is this Church, composed of so many different members, y whom so many holy ministries are outwardly exercised ; it is this that is called “ Jesus Christ’s body it was to this body, assembled under the ministry of pastors, that he said at his ascending into heaven, “ Lo, I am with you, even unto the consummation of the world.” He then that descended is the same that ascended, to the end he might fill all things ; heaven by his person and his visible presence, earth by his spirit and his invisible assistance, both the one and the other by his truth and his word. And it was to continue (when ascending into heaven) this assistance promised to his Church, that he piaffed some apostles, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers ; an establishment which must last till the work of God5 be entirely accomplished, until we be all perfect men, and till the whole body of the Church have attained to the fulness and perfection of Jesus Christ.

Thus Jesus Christ’s work is everlasting on earth : the Church6 founded on the confession of the faith, shall always abide, and always confess the faith; her ministry shall be everlasting ; she shall bind and loose even to the end of the world, hell never being able to hinder her ; she shall never discontinue the teaching of nations ; the sacraments, that is, the exterior liveries with which she is clad, shall last for ever. u Teach and baptize nations, and 1 am with you always. As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shall show the death of the Lord until he come.”* With the Lord’s supper shall last the confession of the faith ; the ecclesiastical ministry and the exterior and interior communion of the faithful amongst themselves and with Jesus Christ, until such time as Jesus Christ come: the duration of the Church and of the ecclesiastical ministry has no other limits.

It is then not barely the society of the predestinate that shall subsist for ever ; it is the visible body in which the predestinate are included, which preaches to them, which teaches them, and which regenerates them by baptism, which nourishes them by the eucharist, which , administers to them the keys, which governs and keeps them united under discipline, which forms Jesus Christ in them ; — it is this visible body that shall subsist for ever. And for this reason it is that in the apostles’ creed, where the grounds of the faith are proposed to our belief, we are at the same time taught to believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and to believe the holy Catholic Church, and the communion of saints — an inward communion by charity, and in the Holy Ghost who animates us, true ; but at the same time also an outward communion in the sacraments, in the confession of faith, and in all the outward ministry of the Church.

And all that we have , hitherto said is included in this form : I believe the universal Church. We believe, her at all times: she then always subsists ; we believe her at all times : she then always teaches the truth.

Your ministers contend that it is one thing to believe the Church, that is, to believe that she is, and another to give belief (or credence) to the Church, that is, to believe all her decisions ; but this is a frivolous distinction. He who believes that the Church always is, believes that she always is confess- ing and teaching the truth. It is to the Church which confesses the truth that Jesus Christ promised hell should not prevail against her; the truth then shall never fail to be confessed in her ; and, consequently, in believing that she is, we are assured she is always credible. In fact, the retaining some points of Jesus Christ’s doctrine is not sufficient to preserve the name of Church ; for then Arians, Pelagians, Donatists, Anabaptists, and Socinians would belong to the Church : they do not, however; God forbid we should ascribe the name of Church to such a Babel. The Church, then, must not only keep some truth, she must keep and teach all truth, else she is not the Church.

It is to no purpose to draw a distinction between fundamental articles and the rest. For all that God has revealed must be retained ; he has revealed nothing to us that is not very important for our salvation. “I am the Lord, which teacheth thee profitable things.”7 In the faith, then, which the Church teaches must be found the fulness of divinely revealed truths ; otherwise she is no longer the Church which Christ established. That individuals may be ignorant of some articles, I readily admit ; but the Church conceals nothing of what Jesus Christ has revealed ; and therefore the faithful, who are ignorant of certain articles *in particular, confess them, nevertheless, all in general, when they say, I believe the universal Church.

Here, said I, is this Church which your ministers know not They teach you that this visible and outward Church may cease to be upon earth ; they teach you that she may err in her decisions ; they teach you that to believe her is to believe men. But it is not in this manner that the Church is proposed to us in the creed ; it is there proposed to us to believe her, as we believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost ; and therefore the believing of the Church is joined with the believing of the three divine persons.

These things having been said at intervals, but nearly in the order here set down, I added that our doctrine on this point was so true, that the u Reformed,” who denied, had been unable totally to reject it. That is, that their synods act in such a manner as shows that they require, as well as we, an absolute submission to the authority of the Church and its decrees. Here I showed Mademoiselle De Duras the four acts of the Reformed religion, which I have taken notice of in the Exposition, article xx. She had read them there, but I made her read them in the very book of the M Discipline.”

The first is taken out of the fifth chapter, title Consistories, article xxxi., where it is said “that disputes about doctrine should be determined by God’s word, if so may be, in the consistory ; if not, the matter should be brought before the Colloquy, thence before the Provincial Synod, and, in fine, before the national, where the full and final resolution should be made by God’s word, to which, if any one refused to submit with an express disclaiming of his errors, he should be cut off from the Church.” It is not then, said I, to God’s word alone, precisely as such, that the full and final resolution belongs (since after its having been proposed an appeal is permitted), but to God’s word, in as much as expounded and interpreted by the Church’s final judgment.

The second act is taken out of the synod of Vitre, related in the book of the 44 Discipline.” It contains the letter of mission which all the churches draw up when they send deputies to the national synod ; it is as follows : 44 We promise before God to submit ourselves to whatsoever shall be resolved in your holy assembly, being persuaded that God will preside therein, and guide you by his Holy Spirit in all truth ana equity by the rule of his word.” This persuasion, said 1, if it be grounded only on a human presumption, cannot he the matter of so solemn an oath by which they swear to submit to a resolution as yet unknown. It cannot then be founded but on an express promise that the Holy Ghost will preside in the final judgment of the Church ; and Catholics say no more.

The third act, which is found in the same book of the “ Discipline,” is the condemnation of the Independents, for saying 44 that every Church ought to govern itself without dependence on any one in ecclesiastical matters.” This proposition was, at the synod of Charenton, declared 44 as prejudicial to the state as to the Church*?’ It was there judged 44 that it opened the door to all sort of irregularities and extravagances, took away all remedies, and made way for the forming as many religions as parishes.” But, said I, whatever synods are held, if we do not believe ourselves obliged to submit our judgment to them, we cannot avoid the evils denounced in the Independents, and we leave a door open for the setting up as many religions, I do not say as there are parishes, but as there are heads. We are then necessarily brought to this obligation of submitting our judgment to what the Catholic Church teaches.

These three acts are taken out of the book of the Discipline, printed at Charenton in the year 1667.

The fourth is found in a book of M. Blond el, entitled “ Actes Authentiques,” printed at Amsterdam, by Blaeu, in the year 1655. It is a resolution of the national synod of Sainte Foy, in 1578, appointing four ministers to attend a convention, which had for its object to deliberate upon a union with the Lutherans, to be effected by drawing up a profession of faith which was to be used by all. These ministers are empowered “ to decide all doctrinal and other points that may be discussed, and to subscribe to the profession without any further consultation of the Churches, if time did not permit them to do so.” From this act 1 infer two things : 1st, that the entire synod commit their faith to four individuals, which is certainly much more extraordinary than that an individual should submit to the whole Church; 2d, that the Reformed Church is as yet very doubtful of its confession of faith, since it consents that changes should be made in it, even on such important points as are controverted between them and the Lutherans, and one of which is the real presence. If the Reformed expected the Lutherans to adopt their creed, they had no need of making a new profession of faith. The parties therefore must have supposed that, while both adhered to their respective opinions, a confession would be drawn up to which they would both subscribe ; this however could not be effected without adding or suppressing some essential point of the Profession of Faith already taught and used as containing only the pure word of God .

Mademoiselle De Duras acknowledged that, having read in my treatise these acts and the reflections I made upon them (the same that I had jus,t offered), she knew not how to answer the objections that occurred to her mind, and that for this reason she wished to know what reply would be made by M. Claude, in relation to these acts and other difficulties regarding the authority of the Church.

I observed to her that, although the members of her persuasion acted as if they admitted the authority of the Church to be infallible and incontestible, they however denied this infallibility ; and I added that it was a uniform maxim of her religion, that any individual, no matter how ignorant he may be, was obliged to believe that he could understand the holy Scripture better than all councils and all the rest of the Church besides. She appeared to be struck with this proposition ; but I moreover observed that they who professed her religion believed something still more extraordinary, viz., that there is a moment when a Christian is under the necessity of doubting whether the Scripture is the inspired word of God; whether the gospel is true or fabulous; whether Jesus Christ is an impostor or entitled to belief. As she seemed to be still more astonished at this remark, 1 assured her that this proposition as well as the other was a necessary consequence of the doctrine which her 4 persuasion held on the authority of the Church, and that 1 had no doubt of being able to compel M. Claude to admit them.

I made known to her the reasons of what I had said, and at the same time explained to her that the character of heterodoxy observable among the Reformed was this, that while they denied the obligation of submitting, without examination, to the decisions of the Church, they were forced, for the purpose of maintaining order among themselves, to invest the Church with the very authority which they denied to it.

She observed to me that she understood my reasoning, and remembered to have read it before ; but that, although she did not see how it could be answered, she found it difficult to believe that no reply could be made \o it.

The Countess De Roye at this moment announced to us that M. Claude, who had promised to meet me on the following day, had been forbidden to do so, and could not comply with his engagement. Mad. De Duras, upon hearing this news, expressed great dissatisfaction. For my part, I wished to retire, and to leave her with her sister ; but she prevailed upon me to repeat the remarks which I had made to her, which I did in a few words, and answered some objections that were advanced.

On the following morning Mad. De Duras paid me a visit, in the company of Mr. Coton, a gentleman of her own persuasion and with whom I was acquainted. It was he who at her request had engaged M. Claude for the discussion, and who had notified her of his willingness and promise to meet me on that occasion. She then requested me to repeat what I had said the evening before. I did so, and Mr. Coton admitted that he knew not what to answer, and was very desirous to hear what M. Claude had to say upon the subject. He and Mad. De Duras started some objections drawn from the frequent prevarications of the people of Israel, who had so often forsaken God, and by whose idolatry the public worship was so far abolished that the prophet Elias thought himself to be the only servant of the true God, until he learned from the Almighty himself that there were 4< seven thousand men in Israel whose knees had not been bowed before Baal.” 3 Kings xix.

My reply was, that in the case of Elias there could be no difficulty, since it was plain, from the very words of the passage which they quoted, that only the territory of Israel, where Elias prophesied, was thus spoken of; and that the divine worship was so far at that time from being extinct in Juda, that it was there, under the reign of Josaphat, in the greatest lustre it had been since Solomon’s time. The thing passed for manifest ; and I observed only how little sincerity there was in the mi nisters’ continuing to allege this passage, after Cardinal Du Perron had given it so decisive an answer. As to what happened in ^uda itself, I would yet make the objection stronger than they had proposed it, by considering the state of God’s people under Achaz,8 who shut up the temple, caused Urias, the priest of the Lord, to sacrifice to idols, and filled all Jerusalem with abominations: and afterwards under Manasses,f whose impieties went beyond those of Achaz : but to show that all these facts were irrelevant to the question, I desired them only to observeihat Isaiah, who lived during all the reign of Achaz, notwithstanding all these abominations of the king, of the priest Urias, and almost all the people, never separated from the communion of Juda, no more than did the rest of the prophets who lived at the same time and at various other periods : a fact which shows that there is always a people of God, from whose communion it is never lawful to separate. It is written alsoj that, in the days of Manasses, God spake by the mouth of all his prophets, and threatened this impious king and all the people. But these prophets, who reprehended and detested the impieties of this people, separated not from the communion.

And, to understand matters thoroughly, we must, said I, consider the constitution of the ancient people. The ancient peor pie had this peculiar to itself, that it was multiplied by carnal generation, by which as well the national as the priestly succession was kept up ; that this people bore in their flesh the mark of the covenant, to wit, circumcision, which we do not read to have ever been discontinued ; and so, though the priests and almost all the people should have prevaricated, the state of God’s people subsisted always in its exterior form, whether they would or not. Nor could any interruption take place in the priesthood, which God had settled in the family of Aaron. But it is not so with the new people, whose outward form consists in nothing else save the profession of Jesus Christ’s doctrine ; so that if the confession of the true faith should be extinct for only one moment, the Church, which has no succession but by the continuance of this profession, would be wholly extinct, without any possibility of ever reviving either in its people or pastors but by a new mission.

I added, besides, that I would not say that the true faith and true worship of God had been wholly abolished in the people of Israel, so that God had no more any true servants on earth.

f 4 Kings xxi.9

On the contrary, I found, first, that it was clear that, notwithstanding the corruption, God still reserved to himself a sufficient number of servants who had no share in idolatry. For if it was so in Israel (which was schismatical and separated from God’s people), as God himself declared to Elias, it must with far greater reason have been so in Juda, which God had reserved to himself, for the perpetuating of his people and kingdom till the time of the Messiah, When, therefore, declaring that the king and all the people had forsaken God’s law, the Scripture must be understood to speak not of all the people without exception, but of a great part, and perhaps of the greatest part ; which the ministers did not deny: secondly, it must not be imagined that God’s servants and the true faith were preserved only in secret; we should rather say that throughout the whole of the ancient people’s history, the true doctrine had always been conspicuous ; for there was always a continued succession of prophets, who, instead of adhering to or conniving at the people’s errors, vigorously denounced them ; and this succession was so unintermitted that the Holy Ghost hesitates not to say,10 u that God rose up night and morning, and daily admonished the people by the mouth of his prophets the most forcible expression that can be imagined to show that the true faith was never so much as one moment without publication, nor the people without warning. And for evidence that it was so we have just seen bow, during the whole reign of Achaz, Isaiah ceased not to prophesy ; and under Manasses, when wickedness seems to have reached its climax, since neither the penitence of that king, nor the holiness of his grandson Josia, could revoke the sentence passed upon this people, God always remembering the abominations of Manasses ; in this time, I say, we have seen that God made his prophets speak, and that a great part ofi the people publicly followed them appears in the fact that this impious prince “ filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, ”f a certain sign that he fpund a great resistance to his idolatries. It is even said that he caused Isaiah to be put to death, as his predecessors had done the other prophets who reprehended them ; and this saying is preserved in ancient tradition, conformable to the word of our Lord, who upbraids the Jews with u killing the prophets, and to the discourse of St. Stephen, who says that there was no prophet whom they did not persecute.^ These prophets made a part of God’s people ; these prophets kept a11 considerable part of the priests and people to their duty ; these prophets, who confirmed their mission by visible-miracles, hindered the corruption from becoming universal ; and whilst a frightful multitude, and perhaps the great bulk of the synagogue, were drawn into idolatry, they kept the tradition of the truth in the people of Israel. *

Ezechiel, who appeared a little after, shows it when he speaks 44 of the priests, the Levites, the sons of Sadok that kept the charge of the sanctuary, when the children of Israel went astray they, proceeds he, 44 shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat 4 and the blood, saith the Lord God. 55 * This succession — not only of the flesh, but also of the faith and the ministry — had been maintained in these priests and Levites, whom God’s grace and the prophets 5 preaching had kept to their duty. And it is to be observed that God never made this ministry of the prophets more conspicuous than when impiety seemed to have gained the upper hand ; so that in times when the ordinary means of instructing the people was (not destroyed but) obscured, God prepared extraordinary and miraculous means.

To this may be added that this extraordinary means, to wit, the prophetical ministry, was, before the captivity, in a manner ordinary with God’s people, where the prophets constituted, as it were, a permanently standing class, whence God continually drew divine men, by whose mouth he spake loudly and publicly to all his people.

Between the return from captivity and the coming of Jesus Christ there was no more any public and lasting idolatry. We know what happened under Antiochus Epiphanes; but we know also the zeal of Mathathias and the great number of true believers that joined his house, t and the splendid victories of Judas Machabeus and his brethren : under them and their successors, the profession of the true faith continued till Jesus Christ. At last the Pharisees infected the religion and worship with many superstitions. As the corruption was about to prevail Jesus Christ appeared in the world.

Until his coming, religion had been preserved; the doctors of the law had many pernicious maxims and practices, which gradually crept in and gained ground ; they became common, but they were not become dogmas of the synagogue. Wherefore Jesus Christ still said, 44 The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses 5 chair : all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, but after their works do ye not.”J12

He ceased not to honor the ministry of the priests; he sent the lepers to them according to the direction of the law. He frequented the temple, and, whilst reproving abuses, continued always joined to the communion of God’s people and disorder of the public ministry.

At length came the time of the fall and reprobation of the ancient people, foretold by the Scriptures and pTophets, when the synagogue condemned Jesus Christ and his doctrine. But then Jesus Christ had appeared ; he had begun in the bosom of th.e synagogue to gather his Church, which was to subsist for ever. It is then manifest, first , that there was always a visible body of God’s people, continued by an uninterrupted succession, from the communion of which society it was never lawful to separate ; secondly , always a succession of high priests, and priests descended from Aaron, and Levites issued from Levi, so that there was never any need of God’s raising up people in an extraordinary manner ; thirdly , it is no less evident that the true faith has always been publicly declared , and that no one moment can be assigned in which the profession of it has not been as clear as the light of the sun, a thing which shows how much they are deceived who believe that, to keep up the outward state of the Church, it is sufficient that one pan name from time to time pretended teachers of the truth. For if there be any time when the profession of faith has ceased in the Church, her condition is so much worse than that of the synagogue, as she from that moment loses the succession, as I erewhile said.

After these observations on my side, some time was spent in passing them over again ; and in the meantime the Countess De feoye came to tell us that M. Claude consented to the conference, which, if I pleased, should be at her house about three o’clock.

The Conference .

I went to the Countess of Roye’s house, where I met M. Claujde. We began by mutual civilities, and he on his part testified great respect. After this I entered upon the subject by asking for an explanation of the four acts, transcribed in my book, and mentioned above. Having in few words stated the difficulty as it is proposed in the Exposition, and as I had laid it open to Mademoiselle De Duras, I added that M. Claude ought to be the more prepared to answer it, as what I said was not at all new to him, since in all appearance the treatise of the Exposition had fallen into his hands, and that, in a discussion like the present, it was a great satisfaction to be assured there would be no surprise.

M. Claude took up the discourse, and, having reiterated all the former civilities in terms yet more obliging, he at once declared that all I had objected from their “ Discipline” and synods in my treatise, and also at present, was vety faithfully related without any alteration of the words. With regard to the sense, however, he begged to inform me that though there were, as I had observed, divers degrees established in their Discipline, the force of the decision was to be wholly referred to God’s word alone. As to what I objected, that God’s word had been proposed in the consistory, from which one might appeal; whence it followed, according to my inference, that the filial decision, from which there was no more appeal, belonged to God’s word, not taken in itself, but in as much as declared by the final judgment of the Church; — such was not their intent : for they held that the decision wholly appertained to the pure word of God, which the Church in her assemblies, first and last, did but show and point to ; but these divers degrees had been established to give those who erred leisure to bethink themselves. That, accordingly, excommunication was not resorted to in the first instance, the consistory hoping that a greater assembly, like the colloquy,, and afterwards the provincial synod, composed of a greater number of persons, perhaps more respected, or at any rate less suspected, by the gainsayer, would dispose him to hear the truth ; that the colloquy and the provincial synod used like moderation pn the same Motive of charity; but that after the national synod had spoken, as it was the last human remedy, all hope was at an end, and that they proceeded then to the final sentence, making use of excommunication as the last effort of ecclesiastical power. That it was not thence to be concluded that the national synod held itself any more infallible than the preceding assemblies, but only that, after all had been tried, the ultimate resource was adopted.

That, as to the promise made prior to the national synod, it was founded only on the hope entertained that the assembly would follow the word of God, and that the Holy Ghost would preside in it, which did not signify a perfect assurance; and, besides, that the form “ being persuaded” was a cburteous manner of expressing a condition, without weakening the reverence for so great an assembly, or the favorable presumption to be held in regard of their proceedings.

As to the condemnation of the Independents, he prayed me to observe that, touching the authority of the Church and her assemblies, there was something in which those of his religion agreed with us, and something in which they agreed with the Independents : with us, that ecclesiastical assemblies are necessary and useful, and that some subordination must be established : with the Independents, that these assemblies, how numerous soever, are not therefore infallible. That, accordingly, they were obliged to condemn the Independents, who denied not only the infallibility, but also the utility and necessity of these assemblies and of this subordination. “It is in this,” said he, “that Independency consists.” He added, that to maintain it was, indeed, to overthrow order, and make way for as many religions as there were parishes; because by so doing every means of agreeing was taken away. Hence he concluded that, although it was a settled point amongst them that ecclesiastical assemblies were not infallible means, yet their being useful means afforded sufficient reasons for maintaining them, and condemning the Independents.

“ As to the synod of Sainte Foy, the object in view was either to render the Lutherans more tractable, by drawing them,” said he, “ nearer to ourselves, or at any rate to establish a mutual toleration ; which entailed no necessity of any suppression or addition in the Confession of Faith, this being held for unalterable ; and that, besides, although full power had been given to four ministers, yet I well knew that such acts were Subject to ratification, in case the proxies went beyond their instructions : witness the ratifications necessary in treaties agreed to by the plenipotentiaries of princes > and other like examples, in which there is always a condition of obtaining the prince’s ratification — a condition which, without being expressed, is naturally included in such commissions.”

Having spoken to this effect at some length, and in very lucid and orderly style, he added that he believed me, equitable as I was, ready to acknowledge that, as in things in which I should have to explain to him our tenets and our councils, — that of Trent, for instance, — it would be fit he should acquiesce in my representation of them, so it was just I should rest satisfied with his explanation of the articles of their discipline and the tenets of their party ; it being certain that there was no other amongst them but what he had now declared to me.

I replied, in referenced to this concluding suggestion, that what he said would be true, did the question turn merely on explanation of their rites, if this word might be used, and the manner of their administering the word or sacraments, or holding of synods ; that in this I should take his word, as being better informed ; but that here I maintained they had shared the fate of all who are in error, falling into contradiction, and being forced to set up what they had denied. That I was aware they denied any obligation of submitting to the Church’s judgment without examining it; but that, at the same time, I considered this infallibility of the Church to be so necessary, that even those who deny it in speculation could not forbear establishing it in practice if they would keep any order amongst them. Further, that if his purpose were to show any contradiction in the tenets of the Catholic Church, I should not pretend to oblige him to receive the explication I should give him of her tenets and her councils, and that it would then be free for him to draw from their words such inference as he pleased, and I thought he would not refuse me as much : to which he consented without difficulty.

I had no design to insist much oh the synod* of Sainte Foy, which would, I thought, carry me too far from the two propositions, the acknowledgment of which I aimed to draw from him ; I only therefore answered that I yielded to the reason he alleged concerning the necessity of a ratification, though in matters of faith such powers and trusts were a little extraordinary : and, besides, I was willing to believe that the synod had not intended the deputies should overturn all. But that which struck me, and what he seemed not to have answered, was that the synod had doubted of their confession of faith, since they permitted the making of another, and I saw not how this agreed with what they further told us, that this confession contained nothing but the pure word of God, in which every one knows there is nothing to be changed. As to his observation, that their aim was only to reduce the Lutherans to more equitable sentiments, or at all events to settle a mutual toleration, tvVo things gainsayed it : first , that there was mention of a power to decide all points of doctrine, which manifestly concerned the real presence, a point the Lutherans would never give up ; second , that to settle a mutual toleration there was no need of framing a confession of common faith, but only of establishing this toleration by a synodal decree, as was done at Charenton.

M. Claude answered that the point of doctrine to be decided was, whether a mutual toleration might be established, and that the confession of common faith w r ould have done no more than declare this toleration. That this might be done in a synod he would not deny, as I must grant that it might also be done in a confession of faith, which would have an express article to that purpose.

I answered him that this could never be called a confession of faith ; and I asked him whether he thought the Lutherans or the Calvinists should have retrenched any thing of what the one said fofc* the real presence, and the other against it. He answered “ No and then, said I, each party would abide by terms of its own confession of faith, having nothing in common but the article of toleration. There were, he observed, many other points whereon we agreed. Granted, said I ; but it was not about these points the accord was to be made ; the question was about the real presence, and some others on which it was impossible to draw up a confession of common faith, exept one of the parties changed, or both agreed upon ambiguous expressions, which each might draw to its own opinions, a thing that had been often attempted, as M. Claude himself would readily own. He granted it, and even instanced the Assembly of Marbourg, and some others held for that purpose ; I concluded then that I was warranted in believing that the Synod of Sainte Foy had a like design, and that it would have been to mock the world to call that a confession of common faith which should have exhibited such manifest contradictions on such important doctrinal points. I further added, it was the more certain that a confession of faith was, as I said, the object contemplated, because the Lutherans having already several times declared against toleration, nothing was to be expected from them but by the means of which I spoke. The matter rested there, and I only said that every one need but consider what he ought to think in his conscience of a confession of faith which a whole national synod had consented to change.

M. Claude having observed that the oath of submitting to the national synod included a condition, I interrupted him by putting in a word. 44 Yes,” said I, 44 they hoped well of the synod, yet without certainty ; and, pending the issue, they engaged by oath to submit.” M. Claude telling me here that I interrupted him, and praying me to allow him to conclude, I held my peace. But after the affair of Sainte Foy was discussed, I observed to him that I thought it necessary, before passing any further, I should state in a few words what I had conceived of his doctrine, to the end we might not speak in the air. I said to him then, “ You say, sir, that these words,

4 Being persuaded that God will preside in it, and guide you by his Holy Spirit in all truth and equity through the rule of his word,’ are only a courteous manner of proposing a condition.” He agreed to it. 44 Let us then,” said 1, 44 reduce the proposition to a conditional one, and we shall see its meaning.

I swear to submit to all you shall decide, on this supposition or condition, that what you shall decide be agreeable to God’s word. Such an oath is nothing else but a manifest illusion, as signifying nothing; I might take the same to M. Claude, or he to me. But in this there would be nothing serious ; and as a proof that something special is intended, observe that this oath is made only to the synod, which gives the final determination, although, in M. Claude’s sense, there were as much reason to make it to the consistory, to which they ought to submit, as well as to the synod, supposing it has the word of God as its guide.”

Here I paused for a while ; and finding that nothing was said in reply, I resumed as follows : — 44 Then, after all, sir, if I well understand your doctrine, you believe that a private person may doubt of the Church’s judgment even when she gives her final determination.” 44 No, sir,” M. Claude answered : 44 it is not to be said that one may doubt ; there being all the likelihood in the world that the Church will judge aright.”" 44 He that says likelihood, sir,” replied I immediately, 44 says a manifest doubt.” 44 But,” said M. Claude, 44 there is more : for Jesus Christ promised that all those who should seek would find ; and since.it is to be presumed they will seek well, it is to be also believed they will judge well, and in this assurance there is something indubitable. But upon witnessing cabals, factions, and different interests at work in councils, it may rea- sopably be doubted whether in such an assembly there will not be mixed something human and doubtful.”

“ Pray, sir,” said I, “ let us leave aside what is good for nothing but to throw dust into one’s eyes. All you say of cabals, factions, interests,* is absolutely foreign to the purpose, and consequently serves only to perplex.”

“ There is nothing,” said M. Claude, “ less foreign to the purpose.”

“And I maintain,” said I, “that yourself will shortly con- , cede that there is nothing more foreign to the purpose. For I ask you, sir, supposing there should appear in the council neither factions nor cabals ; supposing also one were assured that there were none, and that all proceeded in an orderly manner; must one receive the decision without examining it?” He was fain to answer “ No.” Whence I immediately concluded : “ I was right, then, in saying that all you alleged as very considerable, about factions and cabals, is in reality but a diversion ; and, in fine, that a private person, a woman, an ignorant man, any one, may believe and ought to believe that possibly he may understand the word of God better than a whole council, though assembled from the four quarters of the world, and than all the rest of the Church.”

“ Yes,” said he, “ it is so.”

I repeated twice or thrice the proposition he had granted, adding still some stranger circumstance, but evidently contained in what was accorded. “ What !” said I, “ better than all the rest of the Church together, and than all her assemblies, though composed of the holiest and most enlightened persons in the universe ! for all these are still but men, subsequently to w r hose decision every one, according to your doctrine, ought still to examine. A private person shall believe he may have more grace, more light — in fine, more of the Holy Spirit than all the rest of the Church !” All this was to be allowed : and I might have added more than all the fathers, more than all past ages, reckoning immediately from the apostles’ times. “ But,” proceeded I, “ if it be so, how do you escape the difficulties of the Independents v ? and what means has the Church left to hinder there being as many religions, I do not say as there are parishes, but as there are heads ?” He replied : “We have synods, which are means to hinder so great evils; means, although not infallible, yet profitable, as I have said. For, although a pastor that preaches is not infallible, his ministry ceases not to be profitable, because he declares the truth. Now a great assembly,, composed of more persons, and those of greater learning, will yet better declare it.” “ Methinks, sir,”

replied I, “ that you make every thing to consist in instruction : but this is not precisely either the intention or institution of synods, for oftentimes one learned individual will give more instruction than a whole , synod together. What we are, therefore, to look for from a synod is not so much instruction as a decision by authority, which must be submitted to ; for this it is which is needful both to the ignorant who doubt, and to the proud who contradict. An ignorant private person, if you leave him to himself, will confess to you that he knows not how to determine: and far from abating pride in a synod, you mount it to its highest pitch, since you oblige a private person to believe that he can understand the Scripture better than the synod and all the rest of the Church ; and the synod itself, though assembled from the whole Church, upon being asked by him whose faith it is examining, whether it be not still his duty to examine after the synod, and whether it may not so fall out that he, though a private person, may understand the Scripture better than all the pastors assembled ? the synod, though universal, must, according to your doctrine, declare that without doubt he may. Sir, presumption cannot go farther. And observe, pray* that these assemblies, which you propose as profitable means, are no longer so, when every one may believe that he has a better and the only one that can secure him, to wit : that of examining by himself and believing only his own judgment. This, sir, is perfect Independency ; for the Independents neither refuse to hold synods for their mutual instruction, nor to receive those synods when they are satisfied with what these synods have laid down. They have held some, as you are aware.” He acknowledged they had held one to frame their confession of faith. “ Whether one or more,” said I, “ it matters not : they do not, then, absolutely reject them, and they reject in them precisely no more than you do, which is, the obligation of submitting to them without examining.” And hereupon, to sum up in few words, this was my argument : — “The Independents approve of ecclesiastical assemblies for instruction ^ all they disallow is, the authoritative decision, which you will no more admit than they ; you are then wholly conformable, and you ought not to have condemned them.” “ You see not, then, sir,” said 1M(. Claude, “ that we deny not that there is an authority in synods — such a one as the paternal authority, such a one as the authority of magistrates, such a one as a master has over his scholars and a pastor over his flock ; all these authorities have their use, and are not to be rejected under pretence that fathers, magistrates, and masters may be deceived : just so then with the authority of the Church.”

u But, sir,” answered I, “ the Independents do not deny the authority of magistrates, nor the authority of masters over their scholars, nor of pastors over their flocks ; they have pastors, in whose behalf they claim, as you do, a certain deference ; and much more will they not deny that it ought to be paid to a whole synod. If, then, you accuse them of denying the authority of synods, you must add something to what they believe in respect of them, and there is nothing to be added but what we believe — which is, that we must submit to them without examining.”

After this we did nothing for a little time on both sides but repeat the same things.13 Having called M. Claude’s attention to this, I said : “ In fine, sir, it would be an interminable dispute. A man has only to examine conscientiously and before God, whether he think himself capable of understanding the Scripture better than all councils and all the rest of the Church, and how such an opinion can agree with the docility and humility of God’s children.” I inculcated in few words what a pride it was for one to believe he could understand the word of God better than all the rest of the Church, and how, after this, every check was removed to there being as many religions as there are heads.

M. Claude here told me he wondered this proposition should appear so strange to me, that a private person might believe it possible for him to understand the Holy Scripture better than the whole Church assembled ; that the case had occurred, and he could produce me several instances. The first in the Council of Rimini,* where the term “ consubstantial” was rejected and Arianism set up. I interrupted him, saying, u Whither are you starting, sir ? From the Council of Rimini you will bring us to the false Council of Ephesus, to the Council of Constance, to that of Basle, to that of Trent : when shall we have doue, if we must here review all these councils ? I declare to you that I will not engage in this discussion, since our question may be determined by something more precise. But, as you have mentioned the Council of Rimini, tell me, sir, whether the fathers of that council continued long in this erroneous*)- decision?” u Well, I believe, sir,” said he, “they quickly retraced their steps.” “ Say, sir,” answered I, “ that as soon as the emperor Constantius, the declared protector of the Arians and persecutor of the faithful, had permitted them to retire, these bishops protested aloud against the violence and surprise that had been put upon them ; oblige me not, sir, to relate this story, which you know as well as I, and acknowledge that it is unjust to compare a council manifestly coerced with assemblies held canonically and according to order.” 44 Why, sir,” replied M. Claude, 44 do not we say that the Council of Trent was neither free nor canonical ?” 44 You say so, sir, and we deny it ; and we have nothing to do with that dispute at present. The present question is, to know whether you can avoid Independency, and whether there be in your doctrine any remedy against this insupportable presumption of a private person, who must, according to your principles, believe that he can understand the Scripture better than the best assembled and best held oecumenical councils, and than all the rest of the Church together.”

44 We will then pass over the Council of Rimini, if you will,” said M. Claude ; 44 1 will produce another indisputable example : it is the judgment of the synagogue when it condemned Jesus Christ, and consequently declared that he was not the Messiah promised by the prophets. Tell me, sir, would not a private person, who should then have believed our Lord to be the true Christ, have judged better than all the rest of the synagogue together. Here, then, is an unquestionable case for doing without presumption what you think so presumptuous. In fact,” proceeded he, 44 it is no presumption not to give to the Church what belongs to God alone. We cannot give him any thing greater than to believe him implicitly, as you would have us believe the Church. But you know that St. Paul, at least as much inspired as the Church, forbears not to declare to the Corinthians that 4 he will not have dominion over their faith.’14 The Church ought still less to do it than he. We must not then believe her simply on her word : we must examine after her, and make use of our reason, as those of Bercea did, 4 who daily searched the Scriptures, to see whether the things were so’f as St. Paul had preached to them.”

When M. Claude had done, 44 Here,” said I, 44 are many things: but we must first consider this indisputable example you have proposed to us.” Upon this I observed to him that the Christian Church had great privileges above the synagogue, even considering the synagogue in the time of its greatest splendor: but, not to mention this, that it was a strange thing to compare the synagogue (falling at the very moment, when its obduracy and reprobation were clearly marked by the prophets) with the Christian Church, which is never to fall. 44 But after all, sir,” replied he, 44 one might have then addressed to this private person the same argument that you address to us. To allege the prophecies availed nothing : for it was on the application of these prophecies to Jesus Christ that the synagogue Was in doubt. So a private individual could not even believe in Jesus Christ without at the same time believing that he had a more correct understanding of the Scripture than the whole synagogue : and this is the argument that you address to us.”

There were but few persons at the conference, and they were all Huguenots, except the lady of Marshall De Lorges. I saw two of these gentlemen look on one another with complacence. I regretted that a reasoning so manifestly vicious should make such an impression on their minds ; and I besought God to give me grace to overturn, by something that should be clear, the odious comparison which was instituted between his ever-beloved Church and the faithless synagogue at that very moment he had determined to repudiate the latter.

“ You say then, sir,” I said to M. Claude, “ that the argument I propose may authorize the error of those private persons who condemned Jesus Christ on the faith of the synagogue, and on the contrary condemn those of presumption who believed Jesus Christ alone, preferably to the whole synagogue.” u Yes, sir,” said he, “ just so ;” and he went over his reasoning again. I replied : “ Let us examine whether my argument involve this pernicious consequence. It consists, sir, in saying that, upon denying the Church’s authority, there remain no external means which God can make use of to clear the doubts of the ignorant, and inspire the faithful with necessary humility. To warrant the application of such an argument to the time when Jesus Christ was condemned, it must be Contended that there then existed no external means, no certain authority to which men were necessarily to submit. Now, sir, who can say this since Jesus Christ was upon earth — that is, the Truth itself visibly manifested in the midst of men ; the eternal Son of God, to whom a voice from on high bore witness before all the people, 4 This is my beloved Son, hear ye him ;’ # who, to confirm his mission, raised the dead, healed those that were born blind, and wrought so many miracles that the Jews themselves confessed never-atiy man had done the like. There was then, sir, an external means, a visible authority. But it was contested, it is true ; but it was infallible. I do not pretend, sir, the Church’s authority is never contested ; I hear you, sir, contest it ; but I say it ought not to be contested by Christians. I say that she is infallible ; I say that there never was a tine when there was not on earth a Vinibla tod tbority to which it was a duty to submit.; Before Jesus Christ we bad the synagogue ; when the synagogue was on the point of falling away, Jesus Christ himself appeared ; when Jesus Christ withdrew, he left bis Church, to which he sent his Holy Spirit Bring again Jesus Christ, teaching, preaching, work15 ing miracles, I have no longer need of the Church : but, then* take from me the Church, I need have Jesus Christ in person, speaking, preaching, deciding with miracles, and an infallible authority.” “ But you have his word.” 44 Yes, we have, wrlh« out doubt, a word holy and adorable, but such a one as may be explained and handled at pleasure, and makes no reply to those that misunderstand it. Isay we must have an external means of resolving doubts, and an assured means. And, not forgo over again the reasons already alleged, having at present only to answer ypur objection concerning the error of the synagogue in condemning our Saviour,— so far from being able to say I contend that there was then no assured external means or speaking authority, to which men were obliged to submit their judgments, you most avow there was one, the highest and most infallible that ever was, which is that of Jesus Christ, and therefore that there was never any time when the argument I use against Protestants could be less applicable : the argument th£t they am destitute of an external, infallible means to determine doubts about the Scriptures.”

Having said this, I felt there was no reply to be made me ; in fact, not a word was said to me upon it, although I paused* to hear what answer would be made. I will not say that Mv Claude remained silent. This is a result hardly to be lexpeeted in conferences of this nature. He repeated something of w hat he had already said, and insisted afresh on what the apostle himself had declared, that he did not exercise dominion over conscience.

I was oveijoyed that he returned to this passage, which L had intended to explain before, but was fain to address myself to the most urgent point, which was the instance of the synagogue. This being disposed of, I only asked M. Claude whether the apostle’s meaning, in saying to the Corinthians u we have not dominion over your faith,” was that they were to examine after him. He saw well it was not, and confessed it. I concluded : 41 Nor does the Church, sir, pretend to have? dominion over faith when she requires ns to assent to her »de-» eisiohs ; because she asserts not this authority of herself any more than St. Paul did, but ascribes it to the Holy Ghost, who inspires her.” 44 Then,” said M. Claude , 44 you put on the same

OOHnUOll -‘OUR .FAITH.

level St Paul, author of the revelation, and the Church, which is barely its interpreter.” u No, sir,” replied I, “ I do not place the Qhurch °n a level with St. Paul; but 1 say, that to lay claim to credence without examination, whilst deeming oneself only as an instrument of which the Holy Ghost makes use, is not to .domineer over conscience, as the example of St Paul demonstrates. But I do not pretend to equal the Church’s authority to the apostolical. The apostles were authors of revelation, as you have very justly observed, — that is, they first received the truths which it pleased God to reveal anew : the Church is only the interpreter and depository; but, keeping to this essential difference between the apostles and the Church, I say, that the Church is as much inspired to interpret as the apostles were to establish ; and that holding the grace of interpretation from the same Spirit who gave the first revelation to the apostles, she no more domineers over conscience in interpreting, than the apostles did in establishing; but that both the one and the other bring the Holy Ghost to have dominion over them, according to the measure which is given to every one.” “ It ought to be proved,” said M. Claude, u that the Church has received such a grace.” “ There is no need of proving,” answered I immediately : “it is sufficient to show that the passage you allege is not conclusive.”

To this nothing was said. But, if I remember well, M- Claude amplified for a while on the strangeness of professing to oblige men to believe the Church, like God himself, upon her bare word, without making use, for the interpretation of Scripture, of the reason God himself had given us; that the Bermans had done otherwise ; and that the apostle, according to our opinion, was much to blame for allowing them to examine, bis preachings.

I answered that there was a very great difference between the faithful, already children of the Church, and subject to her authority, and those that still doubted whether they should enter into her bosom. That the Berceans were in this last condition, and the apostle would never have proposed to them the Church’s authority, whereof they doubted : but that the faith-; ful were not instructed in the same manner, after the Council of Jerusalem. There the apostles decide by the authority of the Holy Ghost : “ It hath seemed good,” say they, “ to the Holy Ghost and to u$.” # What do Paul and Silas, bearers of the council’s letter, after this? “ They went through the cities,” asit is in the Acts :f What, to cause the Council of Jerusalem’s

' ' ■ ♦‘ Acts xvl 28. f Acts xvi. 4.

decree to be there examined ? This would have bfeen to examine after the Holy Ghost himself. What then? “They went through the cities, delivering them the decrees for to keep that were ordained by the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.” Such is the course observable. Examination in the council ; obedience without examining, after the decision; examination on the part of the Beroeahs — that is, of those who, not being in the Church, have yet no authority to regulate them ; submission without examination on the part of those who, being already in the Church, are only to hearken to her decrees. It is their happiness to be in a body which, guided by the Holy Qhost, can never be deceived, and thus to be spared the danger of an examination which would perhaps end in error.

The conference had already lasted four hours ; I already had from M. Claude’s acknowledgment one of the propositions I wished him to admit, “ that every particular parson ought to believe he may understand the Holy Scripture better than the universal councils and all the rest of the Church.” He was more* over to allow the other proposition — no less important : God brought him to do so in the following manner.

Ashe had spoken much of this domineering of the Church over consciences, repeating three or four times, that we gave her the respect which was due to none but God alone, in believing her without examining, — I told him he ought not to re* gard as so singular what those of his communion did as well as we ; and I proceeded to inquire, whether a believer, at his first receiving the Holy Scripture from the Church, was obliged to doubt, and then to examine whether the book she put into his hand were verily inspired by God or not ? If the believer examine and doubt, he renounces the faith, and begins the reading of the gospel by an act of infidelity ; and if he do not doubt, he receives then, without examining, the authority of the Church which presents him the gospel.

% M. Claude’s answer was as follows. “The believer you suppose, who has not re$d the Holy Scripture, and into whose hands it is given, does not, to speak properly, doubt ; he is ignorant ; he knows not what this Scripture is which he is told is inspired by God. He has heard his father and instructors say that it was divinely inspired ; as yet lie knows no other authority than theirs ; and as for Scripture, he knows not what it is. Thus he cannot be said to be unbelieving of incredulous.” “And pray, sir,” said he, “ let me address to you the same argument with reference to the Church, as you address to me with reference to the Scripture. The believer to whom the Church’s authority is proposed, either believes it without ex-

Google amming, or doubts about it. If he doubts, he is an infidel : if he doubts not, by what other authority is he assured? Ib the Church’s authority a thing evident of itself, and is not some examination necessary to find It ? This is your difficulty, which yon have to solve as weU as I ; either let us both leave it aside, or both resolve it. On my part, I declare to you that I will answer for the Scripture, what you shall answer me for the Church.”

44 Very well,” I answered ; 44 but before I explain to you how a Christian believes the Church, it is material to establish the fact under considerattaa. Is it not undeniable, sir, that amongst yon, as well as amongst us, when the Holy Scripture is shown to children educated in the Church, it is shown them as a book inspired by God ? and I ask whether they cannot, when they ire asked to read a portion, make this previous act of faith : 4 1 firmly believe, that what I am going to read is God’s word?’ 7 ’ M* Claude answered here, that those of whom I spoke had yet no divine faith concerning the authority of the Scripture, but a bare human persnasion, grounded on tbe deference they had for their parents, and that they were but Catechumens. 44 Catechumens, sir !” said I ; 44 yon must not, if you please, speak so* They are Christians ; they are baptized ; they have in them the Holy Ghost and infused faith ; they are in tbe covenant, according to you; they have received baptism, as a seal of the covenant to which they are admitted ; and as the covenant is sealed in then by this outward seal of baptism, the Holy Ghost seals it inwardly in their hearts. Recognize your own doctrine.” * 4 As to this,” said M* Claude; 44 you know that one might deimnr : but I own to what you say.” 44 Well, then,” answered l, 44 if it be so, they are, by the grace of the Holy Ghost and in* fused frith, in condition to make an act of faith upon the faithfe being preached to them : now I ask, whether, when the Scrip* ture, acknowledged by the whole Church for the inspired word of God, is shewn them, they are not in condition to make with the white Church this act of faith : 4 1 believe that this Scriptureis God’s word, as I believe that God is ?’ ”

M. Claude would never acknowledge this, but persisted in answering, that they had yet only a human persuasion about the Scripture, and that they would not have divine iaith in its regard till they had read it. 44 If they have,” said 1, 44 but a human persuasion, they have but a doubtful persuasion ; and consequently they doubt of that which is according to you, the whole foundation of frith in one word, they are infidels.” 44 No,” said he^ 44 they are barely ignorant ; and you must say just the fiame of the ifaith one has in the Church, for it is not a matter Of easy discussion to discern which is the true Church ; and before one is in a condition to know it of one’s seif, one is ignorant of it, or one has at most but a bare human persuasion on the faith of one’s parents. So, once more, what y ou shall say with reference to the Church, that same I will say with reference to the Scripture.”

“ Let us see, Sir,” answered I, “ whether you will say it, or whether you will be warranted in saying it You acknowledge then that a baptized Christian, who has neither read the Holy Scripture nor heard it read, is not in a condition to make this act of faith— 4 1 believe that this Scripture is God’s word, as I believe that God is.’ This is an awful evil, that a believer cannot make so essential an act of faith. It is not so amongst us; for the believer, who receives the Holy Scripture from the hands of the Church, makes with the whole Church this act of faith— - 4 As I believe that God is, so 1 believe that this Scripture is the word of Him, in whom 1 believe ;’ and I say that he cannot make this act of faith, but by the faith he has already in the authority of the Church, which presents him the Scripture. It will be necessary,” I went on to observe, u to explain thoroughly, but at the same time simply, in what order Christians are in* structed concerning the truth of the Scriptures. I speak not of infidels; I speak of baptized Christians, and I desire you to observe well this distinction. There are two things here to be considered. The one is, who it is that inspires us with the act of faith, whereby we believe the Holy Scripture as God’s word, and we admit that it is the Holy Ghost ; hereupon we are agreed. The other thing to be considered is, what external means die Holy Ghost uses to bring us to believe the Holy Scripture, and I say that it is the Church. For evidence that it is So, we need only turn to the Apostles 9 Creed, the first instruction which a believer receives : he has not read die Holy Scripture, and already he believes in God, and in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost, and the universal Church. There is no mention made to him of the Scripture, but the believing the universal Church is proposed to him as soon as the believing in the Holy Ghost These two articles, the Holy Ghost and the Church, find their way to his heart together ; because he who believes in the Holy Ghost neeessarily also believes the universal Church which the Holy Ghost directs. I say, then, that die first act of faith which the Holy Ghost puts in the hearts of baptized Christians is to believe, with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the universal Church ; and that this is the outward means whereby the Holy Ghost insinuates the belief of the Holy Scripture into the heart If this means is not certain, the faith in the

Scripture will consequently be doubtful. But a$ the Catholic has always found this means certain, there is not any moment in which he cannot say, ‘ As I believe that God is, I believe that God has spoken to men, and that this Scripture is his word.’ And the ground for his being able at once to make this act of faith is this : — he never doubted of the Church’s authority, and this is the first thing which the Holy Ghost put in his heart with faith in God and in Jesus Christ. As to your inquiry, how he believes the Church ; that is not precisely our question, it is sufficient we see he does believe it, since it is the first thing the Holy Ghost puts in his heart, and is the outward means of bring* ing him to believe the Holy Scripture — the Scripture of which he never doubts, since he never doubted of the Church which presents it to him. This, sir, is our doctrine, and because it is not yours, you necessarily fall into the inconveniences I have noted. Because you believe not the Church’s authority as a thing which cannot fail, we show you a point of time in which you can* not make an act of faith upon the Scripture, and in which conse* quently, you cease to be a believer.”

M. Claude here observed that the child who recited the Creed spoke like a parrot, without understanding what he said ; and so we ought not to insist much on that : and besides that it was a gratuitous assertion, that to believe the universal Church was the first act of faith which the Holy Ghost put into the mouth of the baptized Christian, to insinuate to him, by that means, faith in the Holy Scripture ; in fine, that I left unanswered his enqui* ry concerning the Church, and how we began to believe her ; for, said he, the Holy Ghost is the principle of belief and not the motive of belief; that it was requisite therefore, I should explain how we believe the Church, and upon what ground, and that, from my manner of speaking, it seemed as if we believed her by enthusiasm, and without any motive inducing us so to do.

To this I answered, that I would not have the Church to be believed by enthusiasm ; that for acknowledging her there were divers motives of credibility which the Holy Ghost suggested to his faithful, according to his good pleasure ; that he was well aware of them, but they were not actually under consideration. “ Our business now is,” said I, “ to learn whether the outward means which the Holy Ghost uses to bring us to believe the Holy Scripture be not the Church’s authority. I advance no^ thing gratuitous when I say that it is the first thing which the Holy Ghost puts in the hearts of baptized Christians ; because, from their very first receiving of the Creed, the universal Church is spoken of to.tbem, and she is proposed to their belief without any mention of the Scripture. It is to no purpose to say, that children repeat at first like parrots, both the Creed and the name of the universal Church. Let us leave,” said I, “the parrot, that only speaks by rote; let us come to the time when the Christian has the use of reason* and when he can make an act of faith. With what is he to begin, if not with the point on which his instruction commenced ? His belief of the universal Church is therefore prior to his belief of the Scripture. In fact, let, I do not say a child, but any man you please, read the Canticle of Canticles, in which there is no mention of God one way Or the other. Verily, he believes this book divinely inspired by God, solely because of the tradition, first, of the synagogue, hnd secondly, of the Christian Church ; that is, in one word, on the authority of the universal Church. But let us keep to our point. Let us consider the Christian at the period when the Holy Scripture is proposed to him as the word of God: — it is the Holy Ghost that brings him to believe it ; we are agreed on that point, but we are discussing the outward means of which the Holy Ghost makes use. I say that it is the Churoh, because it is she in fact that proposes to him the Holy Scripture ; because he believed the Church before he heard of the Scripture ; because upon his opening the Scripture, he is prepared to say, 4 1 believe this Scripture, as I believe that God is.’ You say, he cannot make this act of faith ; he is then no believer, and his baptism avails him nought. We must instruct him as an infidel, saying to him : 4 Here is the Scripture, which I believe inspired by God ; read it, child ; examine it ; see, whether it be the very truth or a fable. The Church believes ih inspired by God, but the Church may be deceived, and thou art not in condition to make with her this act of faith, — As I believe that God is, no I believe that he himself inspired this Scripture. 9 If such a method of instructing makes a Christian shudder, — if it leads manifestly to impiety, a Christian must be able, at first, to make an act of faith upon the Scripture proposed to him by the Church ; he must consequently believe that the Church is not deceived in giving him this Scripture. As he receives from her the Scripture, he receives from her the interpretation of it, and she no more exercises dominion over the conscience, in obliging her children to believe her interpretations without examining, than she does in obliging us to believe, without examining, the Scripture itself.”

“By this argument,” replied M. Claude, “ you would make every one conclude in favor of hia own Church. The Greeks, die Armenians, the Ethiopians, and we ourselves, whom you be* lieve to be in error, we are nevertheless baptized; we by baptism have both the Holy Ghost and this infused feith of whieh you hare been speaking. lEvery one of ns has received the Holy Scripture from the Church in which he was baptized; every one believes his to be the true Church declared in the Creed; and} at first, he is not even aware of any other. Now if, as we have received the Scripture without examining from the hand of that Church in which we are, we must also, as you say, receive implicitly all its interpretations, it is an argument to conclude that every one ought to continue as he is, and that every religion is good.”

This was, in truth, the strongest objection that could be made': and though the solution of this difficulty appeared clear to me, 1 was in pain how I might render it clear to those who heard me. I spoke with trembling, seeing it concerned the salvation of ft soul ; and I besought God, who made me see the truth so clearly, that he would give me words to set it forth distinctly : for I had to do with a man, who heard patiently, spoke clearly and strongly, and, in fine, pushed difficulties to the, utmost points.

1 told him I must first distinguish their case from that of the Greeks, Armenians and others he had named, who indeed err, in taking a false Church for the true, but at least believe as indubitable* that the true Church, wheresoever she is, must be believed, and that she never deceives her children. 44 You are,” said Uto him, * 4 much farther off : for I can lay to your charge, that you do not only, like the Greeks and Ethiopians, take a false Church for a true, but (as is undeniable, and as you your* self confess) you will not have us even believe the true. After this distinction, which has seemed necessary to me, let ns come to your difficulty. Let us distinguish, in the belief of the Greeks and other false Churches, what there is of truth, - — what they have in common with the true universal Church ; in word, what comes from God, from that which comes from human prejudice. God, by his Holy Spirit, puts in the heart of those who are baptized in these Churches that there is a God, a Christ the Saviour, and a Holy Ghost. Thus far there is no error ; all this is from God. Is it not so ?” He agreed. 44 They believe also that there is a universal Church: are they not right in this, and is it not a truth revealed by God that there is one indeed ?” I waited for the admission : and having received it, I added, that the Greeks and Ethiopians were disposed to believe, without examining, whatever the true Church proposed to them. 44 This is, sir, what you do not approve : in this you withdraw from all Other Christians, who unanimously believe that there is a true Church, which never deceives her children. I, who believe this with them, reckon this belief amongst the things which come from God. Bat here is the point where human prejudices begin. This baptized person, being led astray by his parents and pastors, believes the Church in which he is to be the true, and attributes in particular to this false Church all that God makes him believe in general of the true. It is not the Holy Ghost that puts this in his heart. Is it not so ? Unquestionably, it is so. At this point he begins to believe amiss ; here then error begins ; here divine faith infused by the Holy Ghost begins to be lost. Happy are those whose human prejudices are arrayed on the side of the true belief which the Holy Ghost puts in their hearts ! They are spared a grievous temptation, and the awful difficulty there is to distinguish what is from God, in the faith of their Church, from that which is from men. But whatever difficulty men have to distinguish these things, God knows and distinguishes them ; and there will be an everlasting difference between that which the Holy Ghost puts in the heart of the baptized, when he interiorly disposes them to believe the true Church, and that which human prejudices have added to it, by bringing their minds to adhere to a false one. How these baptized persons may afterwards disentangle these things, and by what means they may release themselves from the prepossession that has made them confound the idea of the false Church in which they are, with the faith of the true Church which the Holy Ghost has put in their hearts together with the Creed, is not now in debate ; and it is enough for us to have seen in all the baptized a belief of the Church which comes to them from God, distinguished from the notion which comes to them from men. This being so, I affirm that to this belief of the Church, which the Holy Qhost puts in our hearts with the Creed, a firm faith is annexed ; that we must believe this Church as certainly as the Holy Ghost, with whom the Creed itself puts her in immediate connection ; and that it is because of this faith in the Church that the believer never doubts of the Scripture.”

I stopped a moment, to ask whether I were understood. M. Claude replied, he understood me perfectly. u And if so,” said I to him, “ you must see the embarrassment in which your belief involves you, and must also see that I am not in the same by mine. You not only say that we must not believe a false Church, but that we must not even believe the true one without examining what she says ; and in this you speak against all other Christians.”

Mademoiselle De Duras here interposed, saying : “ This is what must be answered by Aye or No.” “ I do say so,” answered M. Claude, a and I did not hesitate to say so at first.” “ So much the better,” replied I. “ We shall soon see which of us two is in the right ; and, in the clear state things have been put by our reciprocal discourses, the defeat will soon appear on one side or the other.

“ From the time you lay it down as certain that the Church, even the true one, may deceive us, the Christian cannot believe, on the bare faith of the Church, that the Scripture is the word of God.” “ He may believe it with a human faith,” answered M. Claude, “ but not with a divine faith.” “ But human faith,” replied I, u is always defective and doubting. He doubts then whether the Scripture be inspired by God or not.” M. Claude here requested me to bear in mind what he had already said — that he was not in doubt but in ignorance. “ As a man,” said he, u not skilled in diamonds, being shown one, and asked whether he believe it to be good or bad ; — he knows nothing about it, he is not in doubt, but in ignorance. In the same way, when a master teaches some opinion in philosophy, the scholar, who as yet does not understand his meaning, has no formal doubt ; he is in mere ignorance. So it is with those to whom the Holy Scripture is the first time given.” I answered : w I contend that he doubts, and that he who is not skilled in diamonds doubts whether that which is presented to him be good or bad, and that the scholar, with reason, doubts of all his master in philosophy tells him, until he sees it clear, because he believes not his master infallible; and by the same reason, he who believes not the Church infallible doubts of the truth of God’s word which she proposes to him.” u This is called ignorance, not doubt,” M. Claude still continued to say : — I therefore proposed the following argument. “ To doubt is not to know whether a thing be or not. The Christian of whom we speak knows not whether the Scripture be true or not He is in doubt therefore on the point. Tell me what is it to doubt, but not to know, whether a thing be or not” To this no reply was given, save that this Christian did not in any manner doubt of the Scripture, but was only ignorant of it. u But,” said I, “ he is not like an infidel, who perhaps never heard any mention of it ; he knows that the gospel of St. Matthew and St Paul’s epistles are read in the Church as God’s word, and that none of the faithful doubt their being so. Can he believe, with them, as certainly as he believes God to exist, that this word is inspired by God ? You have said that he cannot make this act of faith. He that cannot make an act of faith on an article proposed to him, makes at least, as I may so say, an act of doubt.” M. Claude still answered that he was in a mere ignorance. — “ Well, let us leave disputing about words : he does not doubt, if you please ; but he knows not whether this Scripture be a truth or a fable ; he knows not whether the gospel be a history inspired by God, or a tale invented by men. He can-

Google not, then, make an act of divine faith upon this point, and say :

4 1 believe as God is, that the gospel is also from God.’ Do you not acknowledge, that he canuot make this act, and that he has nothing but a human faith ?” He again frankly acknowledged that he regarded it as nothing else. 44 Well, sir, that is enough. So then, after all, there is a point of time, when every baptized Christian knows not whether the gospel be not a fable ; this is given him to examine. See to what we must come, when we are set to examine subsequently to the Church. We might discourse ivithout end. But we have said all that can be said on both sides, and we should do nothing but begin again. It is for each one to examine in his conscience bow he can maintain that a baptized Christian should ever have been a moment without knowing whether the gospel be a truth or a fable, and that* amongst other inquiries which one may institute during life, this also should be given him to enter upon.”

It appeared to me by the countenance of Mademoiselle de Duras that she understood me. I, however, waited a little, and M. Claude rose. Mademoiselle de Duras rose with us, and coming to us, said : 44 I could wish that before you go, you would say something concerning the separation.” “The thing is done,” answered I. 44 As soon as it is certain that one cannot examine after the Church, without falling into an insupportable pride, or without doubting of the gospel, there is nothing more to be said. Every one need only consider whether he would have the gospel doubted of for a moment, and also whether he feel himself capable of understanding the Scripture better than all the synods in the world, and than all the rest of the universal Church. But since Mademoiselle desires some particular elucidation concerning the separation, I request you, sir, give me a moment more. I shall propose to you essential facts, on which, if I be not deceived, you must soon agree. I ask you, sir, whether the Arians separated from the Church, and whether their sect, when it appeared, was not new ?” 44 They did not,” said he, 44 separate from the Church ; they corrupted it.” He began to represent, with a great deal of exaggeration, how they drew \rith them the whole Church. 44 It is not so, sir,” said I : <4 you know that St Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazian- «en, and many other holy bishops, were steady to the truth, and that a great body of the people followed them. You know that all the West, and Rome itself notwithstanding the fall of Liberius, was orthodox. But let us leave all this aside,” said I to him ; 44 in what number soever they separated, there was a Church before them, from which they broke, and against which they set up another Church.” 44 No,” said he, 44 they corrupted it.”

44 Why, sir,” said I, 44 what difficulty is this ? Never did any heretic separate but by corrupting some of the Church’s children, and separating with them from the Church, in which they had all been baptized. But after all, tell me, sir, was not the sect of the Arians, and that Church which is named the Arian, new ?” “ If you mean, sir,'’ answered he, 44 that Arius was the first who spoke against the divinity of the Son of God, it is not true. Origen, before him, and Justin Martyr, said the same thing.” 44 Ha, sir,” said I, 44 that a martyr denied the divinity of God’s Son, is what I shall never believe. As to Origen, you know that he is quoted both for and against it. He is a doubtful and suspected author. But, sir, let us leave uncertain facts, and let us endeavor to find one, about which both you and I itiay agree. That sect which, After the condemnation pronounced against Arius, joined this excommunicated priest, and formed a Church against the Church — was not that sect new ?” He could not but grant it. 44 In order to prove its being new, was it requisite to go back to the apostles ? and could not one say to it, 4 Church, separated from that other Chufch, in which Arius was born and in which he received baptism, you were neither yesterday nor the day before ?’ ” 44 One might,” said M. Claude. 44 May one not say as much of the Macedonian Church, which denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost ? of the Nestorians, who divided Jesus Christ’s person ? of the Eutychians, that confounded his two natures ? and of the Pelagians, who denied original sin and the grace of Jesus Christ. Might one not say to them , without going back to the apostles : 4 When you came into the world, you found the Church baptizing children unto the remission of sins, and praying for the conversion of sinners and infidels ? ’ Therefore what all these heretics, and all the rest whom you and we know, combated, was believed, not only in the apostles’ times, but yesterday and the day before and at the time when the heresiarchs appeared, and they found the Church in possession of this belief.” 44 But,” answered M. Claude, 44 there are two ways of establishing error; the one open, and the other secret and imperceptible.” 44 Stay, sir,” said I to him ; 44 we ought to propose evident facts, which both parties' admit. I do not admit this imperceptible way of establishing error.” 44 Why, sir,” said he, 44 will you say that you will find praying to saints, and purgatory, in the apostles’ time?” 44 No, sir,” answered 1, 44 1 will say nothing thereon, for you will not admit it, and I wish to say such things as you admit. Deal in the same manner with me. He that shall draw most solid advantages from facts granted by his adversary, will have a great argument that the truth is for him ; for it is the property of truth to maintain itself every way, and to condemn error by the very facts which error acknowledges. And since you mention prayer to saints, I put it to your candor: is it not true that M. Daille grants us thirteen hundred years’ antiquity ?” u Thirteen hundred years, sir,” answered he, “ is not the whole time of the Church.” “ I admit that,” said I to him ; u but, after all, my adversary grants me already thirteen hundred years; he gives me St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Basil, St. Ambrose, St Jerome, St Chrysostom, St Augustin.” “ All these,” said M. Claude, “are but men.” “ Let them be men as much as you please, but at any rate we have, from our adversary’s confession, thirteen hundred years for the invocation of saints and veneration of relics, for these two things were joined together, as you know M. Daille asserts. And how much does M. Blondel grant for prayer for the dead ?” “ It is true,” said M. Claude, “ that is the most ancient error of the Church.” “ Fourteen hundred years’ antiquity,” said I to him, “ is what M. Blondel yields us. I say not this to create a presumption for the truth of our doctrine ; that is not the matter m hand : but I say it to show that we are not without defence upon these examples of errors imperceptibly propagated, since we already have by your consent thirteen hundred and fourteen hundred years. Let us come then to evident facts, on which I may agree ; for you, on your part, agree that the Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, and in one word, all heretics established themselves in the manner I have stated. They found no Church wherewith to unite themselves. They erected one, which separated from all the other Churches that then were. This is certain; is it not manifest?” I waited for a reply; M. Claude did not contradict I did not deem myself obliged to press him any farther on a thing evident and already owned. “ Now,” said I to him, “ how were the orthodox Churches established ? When particular persons and nations — for example, the Indians — were converted, did they not find a Church already established to which they united themselves ?” He acknowledged it. “ Did you,” I proceeded, “ find one in the whole world to which you joined yourselves ? Did you embrace the Greek, the Armenian, or the Ethiopian Church, when you forsook the Roman? Can we not point out to you the precise date of your Churches, and say to all that Church, to all that external society in which you are minister, i you uere not yesterday? ” “ But,” said M. Claude here, “ Were we not of this Church ? We went not out ; we were driven out of it ; we were excommunicated in the Council of Trent. Thus we went out, but we carried the Church with us.” “ What language ! sir,” said I to him. “ If you had not been driven out, would you have staid in it ?

To wbat purpose, then, is that command so often repeated amongst you : 6 Go forth from Babylon, my people.’ Tell me candidly ; would you have staid in the Church if she had not driven you out ?” “ Assuredly not, sir,” said M. Claude. “ To what purpose, then,” answered I, “ do you say here, that you were driven out?” “ Because,” said he, “ it is true.” u Well, sir,” said I, “ it is true. This is common to you (be not displeased at what I am going to say) — this is common to you with all heretics. The Church in which they received baptism cast them forth, excommunicated them. They would perhaps have willingly staid in it, to corrupt and seduce ; but the Church cut them oft’. And as to what you say, that you were in this Chureh, which cast you out, and that you carried the Church with you, what heretic may not say as much ? It was not of heathens that the ancient heretics composed their Churches ; it was of Christians bred in the Church. In like manner, you have not formed yours by gathering Mahometans, I admit But in this you abide by the examples of the ancient heretics, and they were all able to say, as well as you, that they were condemned by their adversaries. For they were not made to sit amongst the judges, when their novelty was condemned.” “But, sir,” said M. Claude, “ we are not both agreed about this novelty. What is in the Scripture is no novelty.” “ Patience, sir, I beseech you,” said I to him ; “ none of the ancient heretics allowed the novelty of their doctrine ; they all quoted the Holy Scripture in their favor : but there was one novelty which they could not deny, to wit, that the body of their Church was not yesterday, and this you granted.” <c Well, after all,” said M. Claude, “ if the Arians, if the Nestorians, if the Pelagians, had been right in the main point, they would not have been to blame for the way of proceeding.” “ Whether to blame or not,” said I to him, “is the main point of the question ; but at all events it is manifest that you have the same proceeding as they, the same conduct, the same defences ; in a word, that, in forming your Church, you have done as all heretics did, and we do what all the orthodox have done ; every one may judge in his conscience which class he had rather resemble, and I have no more to say.”

M. Claude was not silent on this occasion. He told me this argument was excellent in favor of Jews and Pagans : and that they might maintain their cause # by the reason I made use of. u Let us see,” said l to him, “ sir, and remember that you promise us the same argument.” “ Unquestionably the same,” answered he. “ The Jews and Pagans upbraided the Christians w T ith their novelty; of this you are aware. The writings of Celsus and many others are proofs of it.” “ I admit it,” said I to

£5 him ; “ and is this all ?” “ And it was true,” proceeded he, “ that all Christianity ms new,16 if we regard the state immediately preceding.** “ What,” said I to him ; “ when Jesus Christ began to preach, could they say to him, as I do to you, that in the Church he was born in there was no mention yesterday of him or his coming ? What, then, were St. John the Baptist, Anne the prophetess, Simeon, the wise men, and the priests consulted by Herod, when they answered him that the place of his birth was in Bethlehem ? Was it requisite to go back to Abraham, in order to prove the antiquity of the promises ? Was there ever a single moment when Christ was not expected in the Church wherein he was born ? and so expected, that the Jews expect him still ? It is very true, sir, there was a necessity this novelty should once be seen to happen, and this change from Christ expected to Christ come. However, Jesus Christ is not, therefore, new. He was yesterday, he is to day, and will be for ever.’ 5 * “ It is. true,” said M. Claude ; “but the synagogue did not allow that Jesus was the Christ.” “ But,” replied I, “ the synagogue did not condemn St. John the Baptist ; but the synagogue heard, without contradicting them, the wise men, Simeon, and Anna. Jesus Christ gathered in the synagogue a true Church at the time, the children of God which it contained. At last the synagogue condemned him. However, Jesuh Christ had already founded his Church : he gave it its last form presently after his death, and the new people followed the old without interruption. These are undeniable truths: and as to paganism, it is true the Pagans upbraided the Christians with their novelty. But what did the Christians answer ? Did they not show that the Jews had always believed the same God which the Christians adored, and expected the same Christ ; that the Jews believed all this yesterday, and the day before, and always without interruption ?” “ But, sir,” once more said M. Claude, “ the Gentiles did not .allow all this.” “What,” answered I; “was there amongst them any one so unreasonable as to say, there were never any Jews, or that this people did not expect a Christ, and did not adore one only God, creator of heaven and earth ? Did not they show the Pagans the manifest beginning of their opinions and the date — I do not say of the authors of their tenets, but — of their gods themselves; and this by their own histories, by their own authors, by their own chronology ? Do you believe that a Pagan could make a Christian confess that the Christian religion was new, or that there never had been any society which held the same belief the Christians had then ; just as I make you own that all the heretics, which you and I acknowledge for such, came in this manner, and that you have done as they did ? This is the way, sir, you prove that Jews and Pagans might mantain their cause by the argument I use. No one can ever do it; nor ever can any one deny the evident fact which I affirm, which is — that we do as all the orthodox, and you as all heretics have done.”

Here the conversation ended: it lasted five hours, with a great attention of the whole assembly. We heard one another peaceably ; we spoke on both sides consecutively enough ; and except at the beginning, when M. Claude digressed a little from the subject, he throughout came to the matter, and faced the difficulty without recoiling. It is true, he aimed rather to entangle me in the perplexities in which I entoiled him than to show how he could himself get out : however, all this proceeded from the cause, and assuredly he said every thing his could furnish him with on the point to which we had confined ourselves. For my part, I was desirous not to quit it, since it was that which Mademoiselle de Duras desired to have cleared. She appeared to me touched ; I nevertheless retired trembling, and fearing lest my weakness might have put her soul in danger, and the truth in doubt.

I visited her next day. I was glad to see she perfectly voder* stood what I had said. This is what I had promised hdr. I bad represented to her, that amidst the immense difficulties, which the spirit of cavilling and the depth of the Christian doctrine had caused to spring up amongst men, God would have his chil* dren provided with an easy means to resolve themselves in what concerned their salvation, and this means was the Church’s au* thority ; that this means was easy to establish, easy to understand, easy to follow; “ so easy,” said I, “ and so clear, that if you shall not understand me in what I shall say upon it, I am contented you believe me to be in the wrong.” This in fact must be the case, when the matter is well handled ; but I dared not promise myself that I bad treated it as I ought. I discovered with joy and thanksgiving that God had turned all to good* The arguments that ought to affect, affected her. Mademoiselle de Duras could not comprehend how an ignorant private person could, without intolerable pride, believe he might happen to understand the Scripture better than all the universal councils and all the rest of the Church/ She saw, as well as I, how weak was the example of the synagogue’s condemnation of Jesus Christ, and how little reason there was to say that individuals who believed aright needed an external authority to determine them, when they had in the person of Jesus Christ the greatest and most visible authority that can be imagined. I passed again over the doubt in which one must be touching the Scripture; if one doubted the Church’s authority. She said she never so much as thought that a Christian might doubt one moment concerning the Scripture ; and besides, she perfectly understood that M. Claude, rejecting the t tord doubt, acknowledged the thing in other terms; which served only to show how hard this matter was both to think and say, since, being forced to own it, he thought not fit to do it in simple terms ; for in fine, not to know whether a thing be or not, if it be not to doubt, is nothing. It appeared then clearly, that the two propositions which were in debate were established ; and I showed her, in few words, that her Church, by believing two such strange things, had changed the whole order of instructing God’s children practised at all times in the Christian Church.

To this effect, it was only necessary to repeat to her what she had heard me say, and what she had heard M. Claude grant. However, God put in my heart something more express, and I said to her as follows : —

44 The order of instructing God’s children is, to teach them, before all things, the Apostles’ Creed : 4 1 believe in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost; the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of saints, the forgiveness of rins,’ &c. As much as the faithful believes in God the Father, and in his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost, so much does he believe the universal Church, where the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost is adored. As much, I say, as he believes the Father, so much does he believe the Church which professes to believe that God, the Father of Jesus Christ, has adopted children whom he has united to his Son. As much as he believes in the Son, so much does he believe the Church, which he assembled by his blood, which he established by his doctrine, which he founded on the rock, and against which he has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail. As much as he believes in the Holy Ghost, so much does he believe that Church to which the Holy Ghost was given as teacher. And he that says, 4 1 believe in God, and in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost,’ does, in saying, 4 1 believe,’ make a profession; with the heart he believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth he maketh a confession unto salvation, as St Paul says, 4 ! and he knows that the faith he has is not a private sentiment There is a Church, a society of men, which believes as he does. It is the universal Church, which is neither here, nor thete, not at this period, nor that. She is not confined to merely one country, like the ancient Jewish Church, nor is she to end, as that was ; and her kingdom shall not pass to another people, as it is written in Daniel.f She is at all times and in all places, and so widely spread, that whoever will come to her, may. She has no interruption in her succession, for there is no time when one could not say, 4 1 believe the universal Church,’ as there is no time when one could not say, 4 1 believe in God the Father, and in his Son, and in the Holy Ghost.’ This Church is holy, because whatsoever she teaches is holy ; because she teaches all the doctrine which makes men holy — that is to say, all the doctrine of Jesus Christ ; because she embraces all holy ones, all saints, in her one communion. And these saints must not only be united in spirit, they are outwardly united in the Gomnmnion of this Church ; and this is what is meant by 4 the com-

• Rom. x. 9, 10. t Dan. ii. 44; vii. 14.

'igitizeof by LjOOQle

SCRIPTURE RECBIVRD FROM Ml CHURCH. At paunion of saints.’ In this universal Church, in this communion of saints r is the remission of sins. Therein is baptism, by which sins are remitted : therein is the ministry of the keys, by which whatsoever is remitted or retained on earth is remitted or retained in heaven.17 In this Church, then, you behold an external ministry,, which lasts as longqs the Church itself— that is to say, always ; since this Church is believed at all times not as a thing which has been, or is to be, but as a thing which actually is. See then to what this Church is joined, and what is joined to this Church. She is joined immediately to the Holy Ghost, which governs her : ‘ I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church.’ To this Church is joined the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, life everlasting. Out of this Church, there is neither communion of saints, nor remission of sins, nor resurrection of the flesh to eternal life. Here then, you have the faith of the Church established in the Creed, The Creed makes no mention of the Scripture. Is it because it despises it ? God forbid ! you will receive the Scripture from the hands of the Church; and because you neyer doubted of the Church, you will never doubt of the Scripture, which the Church has received from God, from Jesus Christ, and from the apostles, which she always keeps as coming from that source, .which she puts into the hands of all the faithful.”

I thought I perceived that this doctrine, truly holy and apostolical, produced its due impression. “ But there is,” said I,

“ one word more. It is what I said to M. Claude, and I reduce it now to this plain argument, which every one may equally understand ; 1 mean the learned as the ignorant, and the private person as the pastor. The baptized Christian, before he reads the Holy Scripture, can either make this aqt of faith, 4 1 believe that this word is inspired by God, as I believe that God is,’ or ' he cannot. If he cannot, then he doubts of it; he is reduced to examine, whether the gospel be not a fable ; but, if be can, by what means shall he do it? — The Holy Ghost will put it in his heart : — this is no answer ; for it is agreed that faith in the Scripture comes from the Holy Ghost. The question is concerning the external means which the Holy Ghost uses, and there can be no other than the Church’s authority. Thus every Christian receives from the Church, without examining, this Scripture, as a writing inspired by God.

“ Let us go. still further. — Does the Church only give us the Holy Scriptures on paper, the husk of the word, the body of the letter? No: without doubt, she gives us the spirit — that is,

CBV&eril DECISIONS CONCLUSIVE.

th t sense Of the Scripture ; fop to give us the Scripture without the sense, is to give us a body without a soul, a lettet which killeth. The Scripture without its lawful interpretation, the Scripture destitute of its natural sense, is a weapon for self-destructioft. The Ariah destroyed himself, by the Scripture misunderstood ; so did the Nestorian ; so did the. Pelagian. God forbid, then18 that the Church should give us only the Scripture without giving Us the sense of it. She received them both together. When ishe received theXSospel of St. Matthew and the Epistle to the Romans, and the rest, she understood them: this sense, which she received with the Scripture, she has kept with the Scrip* lure ; and the same outward means which the Holy Ghost uses to make uS receive the Holy Scripture, he uses also to give us its true sense. All this ensues from the same principle : all this is the sequel of the same design. As, then, there is nothing to examine after the Church when she gives us the Holy Scripture, So there is nothing to examine when she interprets it and pro* poses its true sense. And, accordingly, you see that, after the Council of Jerusalem, Paul and Silas said not— 4 Examine this decree,’ but taught the Churches to observe what the Apostles had judged.

44 This is the course of proceeding which the Church has invariably adopted. 4 I should not believe the Gospel,’ says St Augustin, ‘were I not moved by the authority of the Catholic Church and, a little after, 4 Those whom I believed, when they said to me, believe the Go$p£l, shall I not believe, when they say, believe not Manichaeus?’ This society of pastors, established by Jesus Christ and continued until now, When giv* ing tne the Gospel, has also told me that I must detest heretics and evil doctrine: I believe both together, and on the same always comm&nsB so.

authority. After ibis banner were Christiana instructed m the primitive times, in which heretics were told that they were not to be admitted to dispute about the Scripture, 4 because without Scripture, they could be shewn that Scripture is not for them,19 that there is nothing common between them and Scripture.

. “ And pray remark, that all Christian societies, except the pewly 4 Reformed Churches , 9 have retained this manner of instructing* M* Claude and I said that the Greek Church, the Ethiopian, the Armenian, and others, were mistaken, indeed, in believing themselves the true Church; but all at least believe that there is nothing to examine after the true Church. There is no other manner of teaching the faithful. If we tell them that they may understand the Holy Scripture better than aU the rest of the Church put together, we nourish pride, we take away docility; none says it, but the Churches which call them* selves * Reformed . 9 Everywhere else they say, as we do, that there is a true Church, which must be believed without examiniog after her: this is believed not only in the true Church, but also in those which imitate the true Church. The so-called 4 Reformed 9 is. the only Church which says it not If the true Church, whichsoever she may be, says it, the pretended 4 Reformed 9 is not then the true Church, because she says it not.

44 Let them not tell us, 4 The Ethiopian says it, the Greek says it, the Armenian says it, the Roman says it; which shall I believe ? 9

44 If your doubt consisted in choosing between the Roman and the Greek, it would be necessary to enter into this examination. But now it is agreed in your religion, that the Greek Church, the Ethiopian, and the rest, are in the wrong against the Roman; and if they were true Churches, you ought (in leaving the Roman, which, as you say, was not such) to have sought communion with them. They are then not the true Church. No more are you: for the true Church believes that we must believe, without examining, what the true Church teaches. You teach the contrary. You call yourselves the true Church, and you say at the same time, that one must examine after you; which is to say, that one may incur damnation by believing you. You renounce then thenceforth the advantage of the true Church. You are not the true Church; it is a duty to quit you : it is here the beginning is to be made. Should any one, upon leaving you, be tempted to unite himself to the Greek Church, he will have his answer . 99

After Mademoiselle de Duras had heard these reasons, it seemed to me that nothing else could give her concern save the habit contracted from her infancy and the fear of afflicting her mother, for whom I knew she had all the tenderness and all the respect that such a mother deserves: I also saw she was concerned for the reproaches that were made her of having human designs, and especially of having delayed the doubting of her religion, until after a donation made her by her mother. u Your own conscience,” said I to her, “ best knows in what condition you were when this donation was made you ; whether you had any doubt, and suppressed it in prospect of procuring yourself this advantage.” u I did not so much as think of it,” answered she. “ You know then well,” said I to her, “that this motive has not any part in what you do. Continue, therefore, in peace ;

E rovide for your salvation, and let men talk ; for this appreension, of being charged with human respects, is itself a sort of human respect, and that of the most refined and most to be feared.”

She requested me to repeat in M. Coton’s presence what had been said, through a desire that he should be instructed with her. He was sent for; we agreed on the facts., M. Coton, in an exceedingly mild manner, proposed some objections about the doctrine I had unfolded. I answered them; he told me be was not practised in discussion, nor versed in these matters. He Said true; he reposed on M. Claude. I prayed God to enlighten him, and departed to return to my duty.

After another conversation which Mademoiselle de Duras and I had at St. Germain, in the Duchess of Richelieu’s apartment, she told me that she believed herself in a condition to take her resolution within a little while, and that it only remained to pray God to conduct her well. The success was such as we wished. On the 22d of March, I returned to Paris to receive her abjuration; she made it in the Church of the Rev. Fathers of Christian Doctrine. The exhortation I made her had for its object, to represent to her that she was returning into the Church which her fathers had forsaken; that she would not henceforth believe herself more capable than the Church, more enlightened than the Church, and fuller of the Holy Ghost than the Church; that she would receive from the Church, without examining, the true sense of the Scripture as she received from the Church the Scripture itself; that she was henceforth going to build on the rock, and that her faith must fructify in good works. She felt the comfort of the Holy Ghost, and the congregation was edified by her good example.

Footnotes

  1. iieb. xii. 84. f Acts xix. 32, 39, 40. X Acts vii. 33. ↩

  2. Eph. v. 27 t Ibid* ↩

  3. 1 Cor. x. 32 j xv. 9 j Heb. ii. 12, &c. f Cone. Nic., Labbe ii. 27. A.D. $25* X Matt, xviii. 17 ; xvi. 18. ↩

  4. Matt. xvi. 13. f Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. ↩

  5. Eph. m 10 — 13. t Rom. xii. 4 — S. ↩

  6. 1 Cor. xi. 26. ↩

  7. Isaiah xlviii. 17. ↩

  8. 4 Kings xvi. ; 2 Chron. xxviii. ↩

  9. 4 Kings xxi. 10. ↩

  10. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 15 ; Jer. xi. 7 ; xxv. 3, 4. f 4 Kings xxi. 16. ↩

  11. Matt, xxiii. 31, 37. § Acts vii. 52. ↩

  12. Ezech. xliv. 15. f 1 Mach. ii. t Matt, xxiii. ↩

  13. A. D. 359. See Note A. f I should rather have said equivocal or imperfect. ↩

  14. 2 Cor. i. 23. t Acts xvii. 11. ↩

  15. Matt. iii. 17. ↩

  16. Heb. xiii. 8. ↩

  17. Matt. xvi. IS. John xx. 28. ↩

  18. Contra Epist. Fund. Manich. — [As this important passage has been Often criticised and misinterpreted— (see Meander*# Ch. Hist ii. 438, Clausen's Augustinus, p. 41, &c.)— it may be well to exhibit it with its context. — ..... librum quern Fundamenti Ejristolam dicitis, ubi totum pene quod creditis continetur. Certe sic incipit : ‘ ManichaeUs apostolus Jesu Christi, providentia Del Patris. Haec sunt salubria verba, de perenni et vivo fonte.' Jam cum bona • patientia, si placet, attendite quid quseram. Non credo ilium esse Apostolum Cbristi. . . .non credo : quid jam dicas aut facias non habebis : promittebas enim •cientiam veritatis, et nunc quod nescio cogis utcredam. Evangelium mihi fortasSe lecturus es, et inde Manicbei personam tentabis asserere. Si enso invenires aliquem qui nondum credit, quid faceres dicenti illi, Non credo ? Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me catholicae Ecclesiae com move ret auctoritas. ‘Quibus ergo obtemperavi dicentibus, Crede Evangelio : enr eis non obtemperem dicentibus mibi, Noli credere Manichaeis l Elige quid velis. Si dixeris, Crede Catholicis, ipsi me monent ut nullam fidem accommodem vobis r quapropter non possum illis c redens nisi tibi non credere. Si dixeris, Noli Catholicis credere : non recte facies per Evangelium me cogere ad Manichsei Mem, quia ipsi Evangelio Catholicis predicantibu* credidi . . . Torn. viii. p. 111. E. Sen.] ↩

  19. Tertull. Praescrip. sejc. 18, 37. ↩

Chapter 2 of 3